BW 8374 EFR vs. Precision 6266 CEA (Jourbal & DBB) DYNO RESULTS
04-18-12, 05:47 PM
#1
BW 8374 EFR vs. Precision 6266 CEA (Jourbal & DBB) DYNO RESULTS
This post is not to start a war about what's better Precision or BW. It's just an informative post!
I found this post in Supra Forums, testing done by Sound Performance.
Both runs were on the same car. The ONLY change was the turbo itself.
We have two comparisons here that include both a Journal Bearing and Waterless Dual Ball Bearing version of the Precision 6266 CEA to be compared against the Borg Warner 8474 EFR. Both turbos are 62mm “Billet” wheel versions so we figured this would be as fair of a comparison that could be produced between these two manufacturers.
The 6266 CEA Dual Ball Bearing was tested on a day that was much hot/humid than the 6266 CEA Journal Bearing and EFR Ball Bearing turbo. The power was lower on the 6266 Journal Bearing as a result. Take this for what it’s worth.
The test car is easily a “Best Case Scenario” based on its performance on the dyno in the past. These results are easily greater than your average motor being used, so please take that with a grain of salt. We want to thank Craig again for offering his car so graciously for us to continue to provide this data that many find incredibly useful to the community. It takes a lot of time, effort, and labor to do testing like this not to mention the wear and tear on the test car.
Craig’s Mods:
Turbo System:
SP manifold (HKS-style)
SP 4” downpipe/midpipe
Fujitsubo Ti Exhaust
SP 3” Boost Activated Exhaust Cutout
TiAL 44mm Wastegate
Greddy 4-Row Intercooler
Hypertune Intake Manifold
Hypertune 92mm Throttle Body
Engine:
AP Built BC 3.4L Stroker motor
9.5:1 Compression Ratio
Kelford 274 cams
Ferrea Valvetrain w/ STD size valves
Fuel System:
FIC 2150cc Fuel Injectors
Fuel Lab external fuel pump (boost activated)
In-Tank Bosch 044 fuel pump (soon to be Walbro 400lph)
Engine Management:
ProEFI Pro128 ECU
ProEFI iBoost
ProEFI E85 Flex Fuel
ProEFI Fuel Pressure Compensation
ProEFI Backpressure
ProEFI Color CAN Display
Lastly, please understand that this testing is coming from a shop. We did everything possible to ensure that this would be a 100% fair and non-biased comparison. Both turbos received equal testing time to give each turbo the same chance to make as much power possible. As always, there are variables present and are to be taken at your own discretion. I have details some of these major variables but will recap them here.
Variables Review:
Precision 6266 Journal Bearing was tested on an 80 degree day
Precision 6266 DBB & BW 8374 EFR were tested on a 65 degree day
Precision units were Undivided .81 A/R turbine housings & BW EFR Divided 1.05 A/R
NO changes were made with regard to fuel or ignition timing
Engine was allowed at least 15 minutes between runs to cool down after consecutive pulls were made
Ethanol content was at roughly 70% throughout the duration of the testing
Same car & same parts (including downpipe) used with each turbo tested
Data Analysis:
PTE 6266 CEA Journal Bearing vs. BW 8374 EFR DBB
Results:
Precision 6266 CEA Journal Bearing .81 A/R
843whp & 844wtq @ 29psi
BW 8374 62mm EFR DBB 1.05 A/R (divided)
786whp & 815wtq @ 30psi
Conclusions:
130rpm spool difference (BW wins)
57whp (Peak HP) difference (Precision wins)
29wtq (Peak TQ) difference (Precision wins)
**We apologize for not having the boost curve here. It was mistakenly not hooked up during the Precision DBB unit's dyno pulls. We can verify and confirm the boost with the logs available from these runs.
PTE 6266 CEA Waterless DBB vs. BW 8374 EFR DBB
Results:
Precision 6266 CEA DBB .81 A/R (undivided)
824whp & 822wtq @ 33psi
BW 8374 62mm EFR DBB 1.05 A/R (divided)
786whp & 815wtq @ 30psi
Conclusions:
70rpm spool difference (BW wins)
38whp (peak HP) difference (Precision wins)
7wtq (peak TQ) difference (Precision wins)
**We’ve only included these results for transparency and full disclosure. The hotter and more humid day when the Precision DBB unit was tested hurt both spool and power performance.
**It should also be noted that the dramatic fall-off of boost for both turbos clearly indicates that we are out of each turbo's efficiency range and that they were both pushed to the extreme limits.
**Note on Ball Bearing turbos:
It should be mentioned that Ball Bearing turbos’ spooling characteristics do not shine on the dyno. Initial spool up, also known as the boost threshold, is not what Ball Bearing technology should really be appreciated for despite popular belief. This is not meant to persuade anyone towards or away any particular brand, rather as another variable to keep in mind. We’ve recorded as much as a 200rpm spool difference on the dyno throughout our recent testing. This could be negligible due to the changing weather factors. It may have been more or less of a difference if this was done perfectly back to back. The same can be said about the BW Gamma Ti turbine wheel and the spool difference would be much more evident on the street with various loads and transient response being a relevant variable.
Thanks for checking out the results! It takes a lot of effort to get this testing organized and the results collected. We'd really like to thank Craig again for being the test mule for us. We had a fun time!
I found this post in Supra Forums, testing done by Sound Performance.
Both runs were on the same car. The ONLY change was the turbo itself.
We have two comparisons here that include both a Journal Bearing and Waterless Dual Ball Bearing version of the Precision 6266 CEA to be compared against the Borg Warner 8474 EFR. Both turbos are 62mm “Billet” wheel versions so we figured this would be as fair of a comparison that could be produced between these two manufacturers.
The 6266 CEA Dual Ball Bearing was tested on a day that was much hot/humid than the 6266 CEA Journal Bearing and EFR Ball Bearing turbo. The power was lower on the 6266 Journal Bearing as a result. Take this for what it’s worth.
The test car is easily a “Best Case Scenario” based on its performance on the dyno in the past. These results are easily greater than your average motor being used, so please take that with a grain of salt. We want to thank Craig again for offering his car so graciously for us to continue to provide this data that many find incredibly useful to the community. It takes a lot of time, effort, and labor to do testing like this not to mention the wear and tear on the test car.
Craig’s Mods:
Turbo System:
SP manifold (HKS-style)
SP 4” downpipe/midpipe
Fujitsubo Ti Exhaust
SP 3” Boost Activated Exhaust Cutout
TiAL 44mm Wastegate
Greddy 4-Row Intercooler
Hypertune Intake Manifold
Hypertune 92mm Throttle Body
Engine:
AP Built BC 3.4L Stroker motor
9.5:1 Compression Ratio
Kelford 274 cams
Ferrea Valvetrain w/ STD size valves
Fuel System:
FIC 2150cc Fuel Injectors
Fuel Lab external fuel pump (boost activated)
In-Tank Bosch 044 fuel pump (soon to be Walbro 400lph)
Engine Management:
ProEFI Pro128 ECU
ProEFI iBoost
ProEFI E85 Flex Fuel
ProEFI Fuel Pressure Compensation
ProEFI Backpressure
ProEFI Color CAN Display
Lastly, please understand that this testing is coming from a shop. We did everything possible to ensure that this would be a 100% fair and non-biased comparison. Both turbos received equal testing time to give each turbo the same chance to make as much power possible. As always, there are variables present and are to be taken at your own discretion. I have details some of these major variables but will recap them here.
Variables Review:
Precision 6266 Journal Bearing was tested on an 80 degree day
Precision 6266 DBB & BW 8374 EFR were tested on a 65 degree day
Precision units were Undivided .81 A/R turbine housings & BW EFR Divided 1.05 A/R
NO changes were made with regard to fuel or ignition timing
Engine was allowed at least 15 minutes between runs to cool down after consecutive pulls were made
Ethanol content was at roughly 70% throughout the duration of the testing
Same car & same parts (including downpipe) used with each turbo tested
Data Analysis:
PTE 6266 CEA Journal Bearing vs. BW 8374 EFR DBB
Results:
Precision 6266 CEA Journal Bearing .81 A/R
843whp & 844wtq @ 29psi
BW 8374 62mm EFR DBB 1.05 A/R (divided)
786whp & 815wtq @ 30psi
Conclusions:
130rpm spool difference (BW wins)
57whp (Peak HP) difference (Precision wins)
29wtq (Peak TQ) difference (Precision wins)
**We apologize for not having the boost curve here. It was mistakenly not hooked up during the Precision DBB unit's dyno pulls. We can verify and confirm the boost with the logs available from these runs.
PTE 6266 CEA Waterless DBB vs. BW 8374 EFR DBB
Results:
Precision 6266 CEA DBB .81 A/R (undivided)
824whp & 822wtq @ 33psi
BW 8374 62mm EFR DBB 1.05 A/R (divided)
786whp & 815wtq @ 30psi
Conclusions:
70rpm spool difference (BW wins)
38whp (peak HP) difference (Precision wins)
7wtq (peak TQ) difference (Precision wins)
**We’ve only included these results for transparency and full disclosure. The hotter and more humid day when the Precision DBB unit was tested hurt both spool and power performance.
**It should also be noted that the dramatic fall-off of boost for both turbos clearly indicates that we are out of each turbo's efficiency range and that they were both pushed to the extreme limits.
**Note on Ball Bearing turbos:
It should be mentioned that Ball Bearing turbos’ spooling characteristics do not shine on the dyno. Initial spool up, also known as the boost threshold, is not what Ball Bearing technology should really be appreciated for despite popular belief. This is not meant to persuade anyone towards or away any particular brand, rather as another variable to keep in mind. We’ve recorded as much as a 200rpm spool difference on the dyno throughout our recent testing. This could be negligible due to the changing weather factors. It may have been more or less of a difference if this was done perfectly back to back. The same can be said about the BW Gamma Ti turbine wheel and the spool difference would be much more evident on the street with various loads and transient response being a relevant variable.
Thanks for checking out the results! It takes a lot of effort to get this testing organized and the results collected. We'd really like to thank Craig again for being the test mule for us. We had a fun time!
04-19-12, 11:17 AM
#3
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: fl
Posts: 1,540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then shaft play, bad oil seal,impacts the housing,broken t shaft and last but no least metal shavings all through your IC piping and if your really lucky through the head and land on a piston
YIPPY THEN YOU 
AND THE FINAL EMOTION
I for one will give up a few ponies for LOOOONNNNGGGGEEEEVVVVIIIITTTTYYYYY.
New Percussion (sorry Precision) slogan should read UN BOLT YOURS TODAY FOR A SAFER TOMORROW!!
04-19-12, 01:30 PM
#4
Lexus Fanatic
I've always known the Precision to be a more efficient turbo. However Roger is correct . I have to run an Ebay special, making less power based on same amount of boost . And why do I do this ??? Simple the Precision has FAILED me four separate times.. And I've heard every excuse. One would think 
if all those thing that caused the Precision to fail .. Wouldn't it do the same damage to a cheap Ebay turbo. ??? Apparently not the OBX hasn't let me down yet..
QUOTE=blk&blu*j;7174451]And then shaft play, bad oil seal,impacts the housing,broken t shaft and last but no least metal shavings all through your IC piping and if your really lucky through the head and land on a piston YIPPY THEN YOU AND THE FINAL EMOTION
I for one will give up a few ponies for LOOOONNNNGGGGEEEEVVVVIIIITTTTYYYYY.
New Percussion (sorry Precision) slogan should read UN BOLT YOURS TODAY FOR A SAFER TOMORROW!![/QUOTE]
if all those thing that caused the Precision to fail .. Wouldn't it do the same damage to a cheap Ebay turbo. ??? Apparently not the OBX hasn't let me down yet.. QUOTE=blk&blu*j;7174451]And then shaft play, bad oil seal,impacts the housing,broken t shaft and last but no least metal shavings all through your IC piping and if your really lucky through the head and land on a piston
YIPPY THEN YOU AND THE FINAL EMOTIONI for one will give up a few ponies for LOOOONNNNGGGGEEEEVVVVIIIITTTTYYYYY.
New Percussion (sorry Precision) slogan should read UN BOLT YOURS TODAY FOR A SAFER TOMORROW!!
[/QUOTE]
04-19-12, 05:48 PM
#7
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: FL
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could pretty much be that Precision fail thread...
A few things to note:
#1- the manifold. (HKS style). HKS only made Open scroll manifolds, which only tells me that the BW was restricted by improper exhaust flow. In my book, this renders the comparison useless or inaccurate. To make it fair you use open scroll turbo with open scroll mani and twin scroll turbo with twin scroll mani.
#2- you compare Boost with boost.... 33psi is not the same as 30psi. If you compare the DBB turbos at 30, bringing down the DBB precision to 30psi what kind of numbers will you get? I think they have those numbers and did not "Fully disclose" it. Or better yet place the BW turbo on a twin scroll mani and let'er rip to 33psi and watch what happens then. Again rendering this comparison useless or inaccurate.
There are few other things that stick out to me but in short I will not waste my time because truthfully I don't give a rats A.S.$ about precision since I will never purchase one again. I have personal friends that have been fed the same B.S stories that I got fed. They are sub-standard turboS and their quality went to S.hits when they were kicked out to the curb by Garrett. I don't think they got dropped because of good business practice.... Remember, Once upon a time their logo Read "Precision by Garrett". All of a sudden they went to China and have be selling Caca. ok.. end rant.
GO HEAT!
A few things to note:
#1- the manifold. (HKS style). HKS only made Open scroll manifolds, which only tells me that the BW was restricted by improper exhaust flow. In my book, this renders the comparison useless or inaccurate. To make it fair you use open scroll turbo with open scroll mani and twin scroll turbo with twin scroll mani.
#2- you compare Boost with boost.... 33psi is not the same as 30psi. If you compare the DBB turbos at 30, bringing down the DBB precision to 30psi what kind of numbers will you get? I think they have those numbers and did not "Fully disclose" it. Or better yet place the BW turbo on a twin scroll mani and let'er rip to 33psi and watch what happens then. Again rendering this comparison useless or inaccurate.
There are few other things that stick out to me but in short I will not waste my time because truthfully I don't give a rats A.S.$ about precision since I will never purchase one again. I have personal friends that have been fed the same B.S stories that I got fed. They are sub-standard turboS and their quality went to S.hits when they were kicked out to the curb by Garrett. I don't think they got dropped because of good business practice.... Remember, Once upon a time their logo Read "Precision by Garrett". All of a sudden they went to China and have be selling Caca. ok.. end rant.
GO HEAT!
Last edited by drewgo; 04-19-12 at 05:51 PM.
Trending Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Wicked SC
Performance & Maintenance
2
04-20-12 02:58 AM
